Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses multi-step looping behavior, unsigned base64 step plan, authenticity verification, unverified-token risk, x402 payment requirement past free tier, geo-gating, and idempotent replay via idempotency_key. This goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly false, destructive true) and provides actionable risk and execution context. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Five compact sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, return shape, verification/risk, payment, jurisdiction, idempotency. Formatting with backticks draws attention to parameter names. No fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 16-parameter, multi-step leverage tool, the description covers purpose, key required-param semantics, risk, payment, and idempotency, and references the output schema for return details. Optional params like pay_in_crank and marginfi_account remain undefined, which is a minor gap. Overall enough for a typical invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates for several params: amount in base units, allow_unverified, payment_header, jurisdiction, idempotency_key. However, cryptic optional params like pay_in_crank, marginfi_account, stable_token, and target_leverage semantics are not explained. Partial compensation only.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description opens with a specific verb and mechanism: 'Open a lending-based leveraged long by looping deposit -> borrow stable -> buy more -> redeposit.' This clearly distinguishes it from short/perpetual/swap siblings. Return-value summary further clarifies scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear context for when this tool applies: any lending-based leveraged long request. It cross-references short_open for geo-gating, but does not explicitly route to alternatives like perp_open_long or leverage_close. The intended use is implied by name and mechanism rather than explicitly contrasted.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.